« PoprzedniaDalej »
arisen, or even by the celebration of a General Council, if he shall deem it necessary, or by any other better way which shall seem good to him, to take care of the necessities of the provinces, for the glory of God and the tranquillity of the Church.
etiam concilii generalis celebratione, si necessarium judicaverit, vel commodiore quacumque ratione ei visum fuerit, provinciarum necessitatibus, pro Dei gloria, et Ecclesiæ tranquillitate, consulatur.-Conc, xiv. 919.
Pages 109–119, 4th and 7th Action. The decrees of this council respecting image worship are simply a revival of part of the old Carpocratian heresy which Irenæus thus describes. Etiam imagines quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tempore quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus. Et has' coronant, et proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophorum ; videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ, et Platonis, et Aristotelis, et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter et Gentes faciunt. Adv. Hæres. i. c. 24. Epiphanius in like manner, fxovol dè eikóvas evśwypáφους διά χρωμάτων, τινές δε εκ χρυσού και αργύρου, και λοιπής ύλης, ärıva éKTUTÚPará pagiv elval toŨ 'Inooũ .... kai Étepa ÉKTUTÓματα του Ιησού τιθέασιν, ιδρύσαντές τε προσκυνούσι και τα των εθνών επιτελούσι Μυστηρια .... τίνα δε έστιν εθνών έθη άλλ' ή Ovolal kaì rà alla; Edit. Petav. vol. i. p. 108. Let it be observed that the distinction between Latria and hyperdulia, and dulia, will not avail here, so that the Romans should say that Irenæus and Epiphanius condemned the Carpocratians only be
cause they offered Latria to the images of Christ, unless they are prepared to maintain that the heathens offered Latria to the statues of Plato and Aristotle : for the charge against the Carpocratians is, that they offered the same sort of honours to the images of Christ, that the heathens did to the images of their great men. See more on this subject in the Appendix.
Page 121, CANON 1.
First, we must observe the vagueness of the definition which binds men to the observance of the rules of "the universal and local councils of the orthodox,” and “of any divinely speaking Father and Master of the Church ;" leaving open to every one's judgment to consider what Councils or parts of Councils are to be counted orthodox, and what Fathers and in what points, divinely speaking. How largely the Church of Rome has availed herself of this latitude, has in some measure been shown in the former part of this work, where it has been seen how many of the decrees of the Councils, general and local, which have been received by the Catholic Church, and, therefore, might reasonably be considered orthodox, she, on her sole authority, has set aside : and it will be further seen in the appendix to this second part, in which there will be occasion to point out how many of the Fathers and Masters of the Church, usually accounted to have spoken according to God's truth, stand anathematized by her schismatical and heretical innovations upon Catholic Faith.
2. Let it be noted that the tradition here contended for is not an oral tradition, but a tradition preserved in the records of the Church by the writings of the continual succession of witnesses in the Church; a tradition therefore capable of proof, and which is no tradition unless it can be proved.
3. It is worthy of remark that this tradition is not here placed upon an equal footing with the Sacred Scriptures, as it is by the Council of Trent, but is expressly spoken of as “secondary oracles.”
Page 125, CANON 3.
This, as far as relates to wives, is at direct variance with the resolution of the Nicene Council, page 28 ; with the sixth canon of the ante-Nicene Code, and the 13th Trullan.
That an oath to commit sin ought not to be observed, and that the guilt of such an oath is incurred by the taking it, and not by the breaking it, can hardly be gainsaid ; as in the case of the forty Jews who bound themselves with an oath to murder Paul. But it was reserved for Rome to decree that for the sake of the ex post facto benefit or convenience of the Church, a solemn invocation of the Almighty was to be considered not binding upon a Christian man's conscience.
Page 128, CANON 27. This canon is beyond comment. One can but call to mind the saying of St. Paul, “ The weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” and then compare it with this decree of those who were his successors in the Apostolic office.
Page 132, Canon 1. It is to be observed that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught by the Council of Trent, is not necessarily determined by this canon; and many eminent writers of the Roman communion, living in the interval of time between the two councils, have felt themselves free to defend opinions contrary to it. Thus Occam (in the 14th century) Centiloquii Conclus. cap. 39, (Lugd. 1495), says, “There are three opinions about transubstantiation, of which the first supposeth a conversion of the sacramental elements; the second the annihilation; the third affirmeth the bread to be in such manner transubstantiated into the body of Christ, that it is no way changed in substance, or substantially converted into Christ's body, or doth cease to be, but only that the body of Christ, in every part of it, becomes present in every part of the bread.” Waldensis, in the 15th century, tom. ii. de Sacram. Eucharistiæ, cap. 64, (Venet. 1579. p. 109), says, “That some supposed the conversion that is in the sacrament to be in that the bread and wine are assumed into the unity of Christ's person ; some thought it to be by way of impanation, and some by way of figurative and tropical appellation. The first and second opinions found the better entertainment in some men's minds, because they grant the essential presence